Issue: May a
Judicial Official teach a course at a state
university regarding the legislative process and, if
so, are there any restrictions other than not
discussing current or pending cases? If teaching is
permitted, the Judicial Official plans to decline
any compensation for teaching the class.

Response: The
participating members of the Committee unanimously
determined that the Judicial Official is not
ethically restricted from teaching a course about
legislative process at a state university. The
Committee noted that Canon 4(1) specifically allows
a judge to speak, write, lecture, teach, and
participate in activities concerning the law, the
legal system, and the administration of justice,
subject to the proper performance of judicial
duties. The Commentary emphasizes that, because a
judge is in a unique position to contribute to the
improvement of the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice, a judge is encouraged to
contribute to those goals. In addition, Canon 5(a)
allows a judge to write, lecture, teach, and speak
on nonlegal subjects, provided the activities do not
so interfere with the performance of judicial duties
or detract from the dignity of the judicial office.
Although Canon 3(a)(6) prohibits a judge from
commenting publicly on cases pending or impending in
any court, the Committee holds the opinion that a
Judicial Official who is engaged in teaching a
course is not precluded in a classroom setting from
identifying and describing pending or impending
cases in Connecticut that are relevant to the
subject matter under instruction. In addition, the
Judicial Official, in that context, may discuss
relevant cases pending or impending in other
jurisdictions without being deemed to be making
“public comment” on such cases. The Judicial
Official should refrain from making gratuitous and
unnecessarily controversial statements about
statements about such pending cases. The Committee
determined that the following conditions should
apply to the proposed teaching activity: (1) the
Judicial Official should ensure that teaching the
class does not interfere with the proper performance
of the Judicial Official’s duties or cast doubt on
the Judicial Official’s impartiality; (2) the
Judicial Official should ensure that the class is
scheduled at a time that is not during customary
court hours; (3) the Judicial Official should
refrain from any inappropriate comment (as indicated
above) about pending or impending cases; and (4) the
Judicial Official should disclose to the parties his
or her teaching relationship in the event that a
matter is assigned to the Judicial Official that
involves the university. With respect to the last of
these conditions, if the conflict is not remitted by
consent of all parties concerned or if the
circumstances are such that it is not possible to
seek remittal (e.g., an ex parte matter, a short
calendar matter), then the Judicial Official should
recuse him/herself. If teaching the class will lead
to frequent disqualification of the Judicial
Official, he/she should decline to teach the class.
The Committee noted that, although the Judicial
Official plans to decline compensation, accepting
compensation is not prohibited under the Code of
Judicial Conduct subject to certain conditions that
are not necessary to set forth in this opinion.